New SERO Oct 1st - Page 11

**Mojary** · #**101** (**permalink**) 08-25-2010, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bullet2300

Is it worth messing with though? I really don't want to deal with having two phones on me, etc. I think I am going to havvve to cancel. Sniff sniff.

or you can hop on to the bargain trader section and unload it for a reasonable price.

Pandaman · #**102** (**permalink**) 08-25-2010, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gspitman

Then keep your old phone if you want your old plan!

I'm really sick of the word SERO, and I'm upset at this announcement which means I'm going to have to hear it more.

You must not realize just how large the SERO population is! SERO SERO SERO FOREVER!!!!

**BooDaddy** · #**103** (**permalink**) 08-25-2010, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pandaman

You must not realize just how large the SERO population is! SERO SERO SERO FOREVER!!!!

+1 on the SERO Love!!!! SERO all the way baby!

nerys · #**104** (**permalink**) 08-25-2010, 11:50 PM

it drives me nuts when people say its only $10 more a month its only $20 more a month.

$10 a month. I have been with sprint for over 20 years. $10 more a month means $1200

$20 more a month means $2400

that is not CHUMP CHANGE to me.

when your subsidizing a phone OK you set the terms. it should however NOT be legal for sprint to "lock out" some phones like this if I buy the phone outright.

Sprint is giving me NOTHING for that $10 or $20 extra a month. I already have navigation I already have more minutes and more M2M than I will ever use.

And what the hell is with mandatory 4g $10. it should be optional. I DO NOT WANT 4G I have no need or use for 4G.

frazell · #**105** (**permalink**) 08-26-2010, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nerys

it drives me nuts when people say its only $10 more a month its only $20 more a month.

$10 a month. I have been with sprint for over 20 years. $10 more a month means $1200

$20 more a month means $2400

that is not CHUMP CHANGE to me.

when your subsidizing a phone OK you set the terms. it should however NOT be legal for sprint to "lock out" some phones like this if I buy the phone outright.

Sprint is giving me NOTHING for that $10 or $20 extra a month. I already have navigation I already have more minutes and more M2M than I will ever use.

And what the hell is with mandatory 4g $10. it should be optional. I DO NOT WANT 4G I have no need or use for 4G.

People like me see it as OK as the $10 up-charge adds new features to Sero beyond the allowance of "iconic" devices. If those new features are of no value to you then you can skip the plan up-charge... That is the joy of it being a choice.

I side with Sprint being able to charge the $10 for 4G or requiring a slightly modified plan for newer phones. Although it is up to us as consumers to decide if the charges are fair, Sprint has to be able to recoup its costs and maintain a profit margin. There is no argument that newer phones put a heavier data load on their networks. Those loads lead to infrastructure investments that need to be made. So asking us to pay more for that is fair. The price they are asking is still insanely low comparatively as well!

Similar is true for 4G. They are going to charge more for it because it is a premium offering right now since they have no 4G competition. That is how you make your money in any business. Milk it while you have exclusivity and then use that "fee" as a competitive bargaining chip. As Sprint could drop it if Verizon has a similar 4G fee, for instance, to allow themselves to have a competitive advantage.

If you want 4G for free just hold your horses. It will be free at some point. Just like how we don't pay extra for 3G although that was the case at one point!

yankees45us · #**106** (**permalink**) 08-26-2010, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nerys

it drives me nuts when people say its only $10 more a month its only $20 more a month.

$10 a month. I have been with sprint for over 20 years. $10 more a month means $1200

$20 more a month means $2400

that is not CHUMP CHANGE to me.

when your subsidizing a phone OK you set the terms. it should however NOT be legal for sprint to "lock out" some phones like this if I buy the phone outright.

Sprint is giving me NOTHING for that $10 or $20 extra a month. I already have navigation I already have more minutes and more M2M than I will ever use.

And what the hell is with mandatory 4g $10. it should be optional. I DO NOT WANT 4G I have no need or use for 4G.

It drives me nuts when you expect 4g to be free. I understand if you don't want to pay extra $10 for android when sero alone is perfectly fine without any addons but the fact of the matter is that it isn't and in the contract that you agreed on when you got sero it states that sprint has the right to change the terms when it comes to the device you use. I knew it sucks, believe me. I filed complaint myself with several consumer agency companies but what they are doing is completely legal. The way I see it now is at least they don't take the sero plan away completely. They probably won't since they will loose a lot of loyal customers but they can still do that if they wanted.
Plus for the $10 you get anytime any mobile, navigation and sprint tv. You say you don't need any more minutes but you also say you have navigation already. So what does it hurt you then? Navigation alone on sero is $10. It's not that big of deal. Plus if you really think it's a big up charge then you have option leave plan the way it is. Hey you probably will be able to add winmo7 phone without paying extra, as long as its not 4g, since sero plans are attached to windows phones.
But again if you currently get navigation your already paying $10 extra so I don't see why your complaining dude.

Sent from my Evo using Tapatalk

mobius999 · #**107** (**permalink**) 08-26-2010, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avlon

$10 more a month for unlimited M2M isn't a bad deal at all.

I suppose not, but what if you already have it? Unlimited M2M appeared all by itself on my plan when it first came out. I thought it was an error until I got my first bill.

For me, it's $10 for Nav. Yay. I use Bing which I find far superior, and a real nav program residing on my card for when I have no signal.

I'd be much happier if the two fees were independent of one another. I'll pay $10 to get a newer phone on my SERO plan no problem. But I dont' want to have to pay another $10 first just to get that privilege with no other benefit to me.

Musicman247 · #**108** (**permalink**) 08-26-2010, 09:58 AM

nerys, you may want to check your math.

10 x 12 = $120 a year

20 x 12 = $240 a year

I don't know where you got your $1200 and $2400 figures from.

**BooDaddy** · #**109** (**permalink**) 08-26-2010, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nerys

it drives me nuts when people say its only $10 more a month its only $20 more a month.

$10 a month. I have been with sprint for over 20 years. $10 more a month means $1200

$20 more a month means $2400

that is not CHUMP CHANGE to me.

when your subsidizing a phone OK you set the terms. it should however NOT be legal for sprint to "lock out" some phones like this if I buy the phone outright.

Sprint is giving me NOTHING for that $10 or $20 extra a month. I already have navigation I already have more minutes and more M2M than I will ever use.

And what the hell is with mandatory 4g $10. it should be optional. I DO NOT WANT 4G I have no need or use for 4G.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Musicman247

nerys, you may want to check your math.

10 x 12 = $120 a year

20 x 12 = $240 a year

I don't know where you got your $1200 and $2400 figures from.

He said he had been with Sprint for several years and it looked like he was multiplying that out by 10 years.

quickstang · #**110** (**permalink**) 08-26-2010, 10:05 AM

One thing I still dont understand is how Sprint can get away with charging $10 more for a 4G device when 4G is not in all places yet. I would have thought by now some lawyer would have looked into this. I can see paying the $10 more if it is available in your area, but to charge people $10 more for something not everyone can use just to reside on the hardware seems illegal to do.

I'm trying to think of something I could compare it to hardware wise that would make no sense, or some sort of fee...

I mean what if Netflix said that they were charging you $5 a month a more because now you can get Blu Ray movies. Lets say I have a player but they say that right now the discs are available in select markets.

There should be some way for them to DISABLE the 4G to where if you do not want it but still want the device, you dont have to pay the $10 extra.

Or... Not charge a person until it is available in their area. There is no way it can be legal to charge a person for something they cant use.

Once it is available then ok. But until then there should NOT be a $10 fee.

I really wish a lawyer would chime in on this issue on the internet somewhere related to this type of stuff. Maybe i'll post that elsewhere and see what info I get.